The tort of negligence is a civil wrong consisting of breach of a legal duty to care which results in damage. Thus, three things must be proved before the liability to pay damages for tort of negligence and these are:- (a) That the defendant owned the plaintiff a duty to exercise due care. (b) That the defendant failed to exercise due care, and (c) That the defendant’s failure was the cause of the injury in the proper sense of that term.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
SHARE ON
This position of the law is inevitable because what amounts to negligence is not law but a question of fact which must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See: KALLZA v. JAMAKANI TRANSPORT LTD. (1961) ALL NLR 747; NGILARI V. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR SC; (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 636) 626.
— U. Onyemenam, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him or a possible secondary object is to punish the defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. The rationale behind the compensatory theory for the award of damages is found in the maxim restitutio in integrum. In other words, to restore the injured party to the position he or she was in prior to the injury.
– Kekere-Ekun JSC. British v. Atoyebi (2014) – SC.332/2010
The authorities are replete that a successful plea of negligence consists of proving the trivet issues of duty, breach and subsequent damages. In the case of GKF Investment Nigeria Ltd v. Nigerian Telecommunications Plc [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1164) 34, it is settled that the particulars of the pleading the breach of a duty of care is required as stated supra and it can neither be assumed or indirect; where there is no real duty to be exercised by the defendants, negligence will have no limbs to stand and any claim articulated thereon will fail.
— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016
Damages are always in issue and so failure to deny them is not fatal: Re The Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 S.C. 111.
— Edozie, JCA. British American v. Ekeoma & Anor. (1994) – CA/E/60/88
The Supreme Court in the case of HAMZA V. KURE (2010) LPELR-1351(SC) (P. 14, paras. E-G) Per Mohammad J.S.C., defined negligence thus: “As far back as 1856, Lord Alderson B., defined negligence to be the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. See: BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS COMPANY. [1856] 11 Exch. 781 at 784. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all.”
Negligence is the omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man under similar circumstances can do, or the doing of something which a reasonable or prudent man would not do. More often than not, Negligence in civil matters occur in form of a breach of duty to take care.
— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry